Rules are not defined in terms of how to deal with a hit that strikes both an illegal, and a legal target area (Example: Head + shoulder). Some realms choose to ignore these strikes, while others treat them as valid hits to the legal target area.

Also strikes hitting multiple target areas are partially consolidated into one section of the BoW, but 3.6.4 is not included in that section. Cleaning this up as part of the proposed change.

CURRENT RULES

Quote:

3.8. A hit that strikes both the body AND either an arm or a leg is assumed to have hit the body.3.9. A single strike can only damage one target area.3.6.4. Weapons that strike both armored and unarmored target areas are considered to have hit the unarmored target area.

PROPOSED CHANGE

Quote:

3.8. A single strike can only damage one target area.3.8.1. A strike to both the body and either an arm or a leg is assumed to have hit the body.3.8.2. A strike to both an armored and an unarmored target area is considered to have hit the unarmored target area.3.8.3. A sufficient force strike to both an illegal target area and a legal target area causes no damage.

Changes are as follows

3.9 re-numbered to 3.8.

3.8 re-numbered to 3.8.1.

3.6.4 re-numbered to 3.8.2 and re-worded to be consistent with other rules in this section.

I'd be fine with this. I like that it lets people know what to do when this happens. If someone has a different interpretation that clears it up, I'd be for that too. And Akroth EVERYONE should BoW rant. It's good for the pores.

_________________Sir Oroku Norinaga, KBMC, OGOTertiary Knight of the High Code"You do not have to be a squire to start learning to be a knight. Take your time and make good decisions."-UricSeneschel of Stygia

Current rules do not define how a strike to both an illegal and a legal target area should be treated. As a result, the call is entirely up to the person who gets hit and these rules are already subject to abuse based on the interpretation of the person being struck.

Possible interpretations presently include:

1. Take strikes to the shoulder regardless of head/neck contact.

2. Take strikes to the shoulder, except if there is sufficient force contact to the head/neck.

3. Take strikes to the shoulder, except if there is contact to the head/neck.

Any of the above interpretations can be abused, and each has its own pros and cons.

We chose to go with 2, as it seems to be the most common interpretation and it strikes the best balance between discouraging headshots while also limiting potential for abuse.

3.8. A single strike can only damage one target area.3.8.1. A strike to both the body and either an arm or a leg is assumed to have hit the body.3.8.2. A strike to both an armored and an unarmored target area is considered to have hit the unarmored target area.3.8.3. A sufficient force strike to both an illegal target area and a legal target area causes no damage.

Changes are as follows

3.9 re-numbered to 3.8.

3.8 re-numbered to 3.8.1.

3.6.4 re-numbered to 3.8.2 and re-worded to be consistent with other rules in this section.

3.8.3 added

I like this. I know people are worried about head-boxing, but those headboxers have a long life of brain-damaged suffering ahead of them in their old age, and I personally find that enough of a revenge for those that abuse the system. I'm kidding! I'm kidding! Marshals already have provisions for removing unsafe participants for intentional or unintentional (repeated acts).

_________________Cofounder and Marshal of AndúrilCofounder Battle for the RingOrder of the Shining TowerOrder of the Western Flame

Personally if an intended (landing) shoulder or chest shot grazes My face/ear/side of head etc I take the death as I feel that is the honorable way to play.

I only yell "head" when a shot slams My head.

Not everyone plays this way. The rule is being suggested in order to make this the standard interpretation.

Blackwolfe wrote:

Everywhere I've played or watched fighting, when someone yells "head" that's the end of the story. Never have I seen a herald or official call someone dead when that person called "head" SO this change in rule - to My thinking - is not needed and will cause, not prevent problems.

Therefore I am against this motion.

There are two seperate issues here:

1. Different interpretations of the rule.

2. Intentional cheating.

This rule aims to set a standard interpretation, rather than allowing for differing interpretations among fighters (1).

This fix does nothing to prevent people from cheating (2). If someone willfully ignores the BoW, that's not something that a rule will fix.